Ok that’s a huge relief. I guess I didn’t grasp that’s what the gameplay would be like after watching some YouTube gameplay videos, since I assumed that the low player numbers in a Demo wouldn’t actually reflect how it would be at release with a huge player base.
Yeah, you can pretty much just ignore total players. As you know, games like this don't group based on number of total players. Like in WoW, there's millions concurrently, but you only see like a couple in the zone, maybe half a dozen normally in a questing hub/town, a couple dozen in a city.
They scaled down that pretty big number of demo players for that tiny playable area--I'd assume you saw all those PCs in the demo area--pretty nicely. Besides the world boss and town I only saw 1 other person sometimes.
Some guy in your other thread said that Open World was “optional”, what did he mean? Can you actually use a certain mode and never see anyone else?
Ok that’s a huge relief. I guess I didn’t grasp that’s what the gameplay would be like after watching some YouTube gameplay videos, since I assumed that the low player numbers in a Demo wouldn’t actually reflect how it would be at release with a huge player base.
I’m still not understanding how blizzard specifically said there will be hundreds of players in your “world”, yet somehow we won’t encounter them a lot when we’re out fighting monsters? How does that make sense? Like in WoW, certain “servers” have very high populations and you’ll constantly find it difficult to complete quests because of overcrowding. That’s specifically what I’m concerned about.
Because people have yet to overcome the impossibility to accept the "optional" concept of content that is there NOT FOR EVERYONE. They think that if it's there they are forced to play that way. They fail to understand that they're not the only people in the world and that maybe the majority would use such a feature . It's a feature that it's on top of the base experience, entirely optional, and not necessary to achieve end game.
Blizz said the Open world feature is “optional”? Where did they say this? I was under the impression you didn’t have a choice in sharing whatever world you’re in.
Like, that's literally how it will work. The game won't phase a hundred players on top of each other. It's how phasing works. Probably a couple hundred peeps in the demo.
So you’re saying that when blizz said ‘towns’ will have hundreds of players in them.... you won’t see the other players in that specific town? Because they won’t “phase” them together? What? Where did blizzard explain this?
My initial reaction was same as OP. I was looking forward to something a little more new and courageous with the gameplay...theyre playing it safe and sticking with the same basic formula. Fine.
i like the open world idea as a fun factor - but at what cost to the immersion and story. D1 was intense because it was you, alone (or 1 to 2 max) descending into hell. Hows the story line going to play with 100 heroes running around - will they ignore it or will the world set that context? The trailor gave me home for a good story again, I just hope the gameplay can hold up even tho its unoriginal.
They said (and the demo I played showed) that the overwhelming majority of the time the, phasing, I don't know what they're calling it, limits it to one or two people on a screen when not in a party. I didn't start seeing other players until I got near an event, where I saw maybe 1-2 others, or the world boss, when there was a total of like 12 or so. Most of the time it felt very isolated.
Dude... you played a DEMO, with limited players. D3 sold millions of copies, and with D4 promising better gameplay/PvP/trading and with being developed/released for multiple consoles , it’ll sell a lot more. Blizz said that “towns” will have hundreds of players in them. So once theirs a 6 million player base, you’ll probably never be alone. Even if creatures have a fast respawn, You’ll still get campers in lots of places like WoW. And all sorts of other obnoxious gameplay features that come with overcrowded ‘Open world’ Games. The Open World feature may help with overall game longevity, but at what cost?
Game is really behind in development and for me looks like D3 with a new engine, graphics-wise.
But for me gameplay and features are more important than graphics, so i seriously don't get why would you complain about that.
Also being an open world and seemingly able to hold more players at one place it is a good thing that the game can be run on higher range of PCs.
The gameplay also looks the same from the demo. So they added PVP, cool. They should’ve had PVP in D3 from the beginning. Acting like it’s some cool new concept isn’t a bonus, it’s a slap in the face. ‘open world’ was never a concept Diablo players cared or asked for. The only other thing ‘new’ is riding mounts and auto-climbing walls you click on. (Wow alert). Blizz also said they’re adding a monetization aspect to D4. Which might also kill the gameplay for anyone who doesn’t want to spend real money.
What if i told you, we wanted open world? "your own opinion" and "the game you imagine it to be" is not the perfect one, and your opinion does not represent the playerbase. None does mine. But let's see what my ideal diablo4 would be. Since you are one sole person and I am one too, you can say my opinion next to yours cancels or balances it out. D3 (maybe even more fluid), with a huge continous map that contains a lot more content (aka open world) without sets and 10000000000% modifiers, and more d2 or classic arpg like items. They did exactly this. And a lot more, but these were the basics.
The graphics are breathtaking. You can say 1 or 2 models does not look too good, but most of it does. They always tune graphics a lot before release, but the amount of detail and the way the light work in this game is really nice. And you can hate all you want on d3, you cannot show one more game that looks so nice after 7 years, and does not look like sh*t in 3 years. This new one is more of a mix of d3 art style with a darker theme, and super realistic graphics.
I’ve seen all the gameplay videos. Nothing “breathtaking” about them. If you put HD screenshots of D3 next to D4, they could almost be the same game. D4 just being a bit darker and sharper.
D3 demo looked pretty much identical to the graphics at release, so not sure why you’d think the graphics would improve anymore beyond what they are now.
The open world feature might be good, but not sure how well it’ll work in an ARPG where gameplay is much faster than WoW. Monsters will have to have an extremely quick respawn rate or the OP players will roam around just constantly killing everything before you do. Then thatll cause players to “camp” in certain spots to kill steal.
I just hope they change the fact that you can’t respec skills, only talents. It would be dumb to make it like D2 in the beginning. Even d2 added respec ability through quests. I agree that D3 made it too easy, and that being able to switch to any skill at anytime made it way more boring and like choices didn’t matter. But They should make it so you can respec at least a couple times, or maybe make it so it costs exponentially more gold/mats to respec your character. But having your choices be permanent is just dumb, what if you accidentally click a skill you didn’t want? Or discover the skill you’ve dedicated your class to is actually really weak and worthless?
But they are looking to make the best gear BoP. Wooooooow. So WoW.
I hope they change this. Because in D2 it was always fun finding legendaries because even if you couldn’t use it, you could sell/trade it for a lot. In D3 it isn’t fun finding most legendaries because 99% of the legendaries you find either suck or are worthless and can’t be traded. Just melt down for mats.
On top of that they are going to make it so that in the end you can get all the spells. I think this will be a huge mistake as it completely nulifies the point of talent/skill trees.
Really? Where did you hear this? I heard that you cannot “respec” skills, only talents. Talents add a small bonus to damage and things like that. But the actual skills like Meteor or Firebolt will supposedly only be choose-able once. At least that’s what I read.
Lol you guys think the mere inclusion of skill “cooldowns” makes diablo like WoW? And instead you want all spells to be spammable and that’s “more fun” than having to strategize around certain ability Cooldowns?
First of all, in D2 you literally only used 2 skills. That’s it. In reality the gameplay of D2 was incredibly boring because of its extreme limitations. The D3 skill system sucked because there were no “skill points”, but the ability to use 5-6 different skills definitely needs to stay in D4.
Micro transactions are just a part of gaming now. Plain and simple. There’s no point in arguing it away because it’s how companies make a lot of continued income from the games they release, and it also gives them the income to continue to add new content to a game instead of just abandoning it to work on the next version or another game entirely.
As long as it’s only cosmetic and people can’t buy ‘power’, no one should have a problem with it, because it doesn’t effect your gameplay at all.
if the micro transactions are cosmetic and these cosmetics are NOT gear skins, a good example being: a "back piece" set of wings like in guild wars 2 OR aura effects OR better mount skins
then I would be happy camper
Why would them being “gear skins” matter? Because you don’t want someone to look ‘cooler’ than you in the same gear? lol
0
Some guy in your other thread said that Open World was “optional”, what did he mean? Can you actually use a certain mode and never see anyone else?
0
Magistrate,
Ok that’s a huge relief. I guess I didn’t grasp that’s what the gameplay would be like after watching some YouTube gameplay videos, since I assumed that the low player numbers in a Demo wouldn’t actually reflect how it would be at release with a huge player base.
0
Magistrate,
I’m still not understanding how blizzard specifically said there will be hundreds of players in your “world”, yet somehow we won’t encounter them a lot when we’re out fighting monsters? How does that make sense? Like in WoW, certain “servers” have very high populations and you’ll constantly find it difficult to complete quests because of overcrowding. That’s specifically what I’m concerned about.
0
Blizz said the Open world feature is “optional”? Where did they say this? I was under the impression you didn’t have a choice in sharing whatever world you’re in.
0
So you’re saying that when blizz said ‘towns’ will have hundreds of players in them.... you won’t see the other players in that specific town? Because they won’t “phase” them together? What? Where did blizzard explain this?
0
Dude... you played a DEMO, with limited players. D3 sold millions of copies, and with D4 promising better gameplay/PvP/trading and with being developed/released for multiple consoles , it’ll sell a lot more. Blizz said that “towns” will have hundreds of players in them. So once theirs a 6 million player base, you’ll probably never be alone. Even if creatures have a fast respawn, You’ll still get campers in lots of places like WoW. And all sorts of other obnoxious gameplay features that come with overcrowded ‘Open world’ Games. The Open World feature may help with overall game longevity, but at what cost?
0
I’ve seen all the gameplay videos. Nothing “breathtaking” about them. If you put HD screenshots of D3 next to D4, they could almost be the same game. D4 just being a bit darker and sharper.
D3 demo looked pretty much identical to the graphics at release, so not sure why you’d think the graphics would improve anymore beyond what they are now.
The open world feature might be good, but not sure how well it’ll work in an ARPG where gameplay is much faster than WoW. Monsters will have to have an extremely quick respawn rate or the OP players will roam around just constantly killing everything before you do. Then thatll cause players to “camp” in certain spots to kill steal.
0
Really? I missed that part in the presentation. I could’ve sworn it said the opposite? Hmm
0
I just hope they change the fact that you can’t respec skills, only talents. It would be dumb to make it like D2 in the beginning. Even d2 added respec ability through quests. I agree that D3 made it too easy, and that being able to switch to any skill at anytime made it way more boring and like choices didn’t matter. But They should make it so you can respec at least a couple times, or maybe make it so it costs exponentially more gold/mats to respec your character. But having your choices be permanent is just dumb, what if you accidentally click a skill you didn’t want? Or discover the skill you’ve dedicated your class to is actually really weak and worthless?
0
I hope they change this. Because in D2 it was always fun finding legendaries because even if you couldn’t use it, you could sell/trade it for a lot. In D3 it isn’t fun finding most legendaries because 99% of the legendaries you find either suck or are worthless and can’t be traded. Just melt down for mats.
0
Really? Where did you hear this? I heard that you cannot “respec” skills, only talents. Talents add a small bonus to damage and things like that. But the actual skills like Meteor or Firebolt will supposedly only be choose-able once. At least that’s what I read.
2
If you want to post the list here and respond that’s cool, but linking to your YouTube video in a forum for more views is kinda lame dude.
3
Lol you guys think the mere inclusion of skill “cooldowns” makes diablo like WoW? And instead you want all spells to be spammable and that’s “more fun” than having to strategize around certain ability Cooldowns?
First of all, in D2 you literally only used 2 skills. That’s it. In reality the gameplay of D2 was incredibly boring because of its extreme limitations. The D3 skill system sucked because there were no “skill points”, but the ability to use 5-6 different skills definitely needs to stay in D4.
0
Micro transactions are just a part of gaming now. Plain and simple. There’s no point in arguing it away because it’s how companies make a lot of continued income from the games they release, and it also gives them the income to continue to add new content to a game instead of just abandoning it to work on the next version or another game entirely.
As long as it’s only cosmetic and people can’t buy ‘power’, no one should have a problem with it, because it doesn’t effect your gameplay at all.
0
Why would them being “gear skins” matter? Because you don’t want someone to look ‘cooler’ than you in the same gear? lol